In defence of well-run competitions – and architects

It’s an odd feeling to see comments under your LinkedIn post reported in a news article in BD. Not necessarily a good one, but in some ways, I think it has been useful.

I wrote a short comment in defence of well-run competitions. An imperfect system, yes, we all recognise that, but I highlighted some of the wider benefits in one recent experience, such as the chance to try out different ways of working. I personally enjoy that creative, early stage of design, the challenge of a new brief. It’s not something I can always dedicate enough time to, though I appreciate no practice ever has that great luxury of time either.

It’s fair criticism too that I’m not speaking as a small studio now, but I have led one, and competitions helped us survive – sometimes there’s a need to show what you can do before you’ve been given the opportunity to do it.

When we started Weston Williamson, we didn’t have contacts and clients. We had to be creative in generating work in the same way every small studio does today. We entered the Venice Bus Station Competition in 1989, which was won by Dixon-Jones. Our entry was commended and, because we had analysed all the bus, coach, taxi, car and pedestrian movements with Arup, it helped us get an interview with the Jubilee Line’s Chief Architect – and without that competition, we wouldn’t have been shortlisted for London Bridge.

If there were no suitable competitions, Andrew and I used to invent projects to demonstrate ideas. We drew up an entirely spurious scheme for a research laboratory in the Italian Alps that was accepted into the RA Summer Exhibition and led to a project for English China Clays in Cornwall. These are wider benefits of speculative work that we might have hoped for but couldn’t have foreseen – and part of the reason why I feel competitions still serve a purpose in making connections, exploring ideas.

But what is the line between fair participation and exploitation, and what can we learn from creative procurement in other industries when it’s done well?

In the comments I read, comparisons are often drawn with other professional services, like lawyers or accountants. But we’re not accountants, though, are we – far from it. Perhaps a closer comparison in treading this line is with artists invited to submit for a public commission, or a graphic designer asked for a pitch. It’s a chance to react with the client, to learn how to communicate ideas.

I can’t remember the last time we were commissioned solely on the evidence of what we had done for others. Clients quite rightly want to know what you can do for them

Many architects, from Corb to Cedric Price, have talked about their ideas long before they knew how to realise them. Architects teach and write (or used to) manifestos, but were not accused of giving their ideas away. Perhaps part of the challenge is assessing how we present our ideas in a way that avoids excessive work. One of the best presentations I have seen in my career was from Rachel Whiteread, at the time we were interviewing artists for Victoria Station. A few other artists had done a lot of work to explain their proposals. Rachel had done a lot of thinking. She read from a single A4 sheet, which explained concisely what she would do. It was the most effective delivery.

I can’t remember the last time we were commissioned solely on the evidence of what we had done for others. Clients quite rightly want to know what you can do for them. In the Catch-22 of demonstrating previous experience, competitions provide an imperfect but useful solution. Personally, I’ve never felt entitled to assume that because one project was successful for one client, I should be appointed by an entirely different client with an entirely different problem.

What can we do to improve the system?

I want to make a real difference during my tenure at the RIBA, and that means not shying away from this kind of debate or these conversations, listening to constructive criticism however uncomfortable, and, more challengingly, as RIBA President-Elect, a degree of waiting until it is my turn to address these issues directly. It is a chance to listen and learn.

Whatever our differences, there’s strength in consensus, and by agreeing a collective position, we stand a better chance of outlawing more exploitative procurement practices. RIBA can bring us together in this. But we need to be specific when it comes to defining what we hope to achieve, and where good guidance already exists, making sure it’s actually used.

There are obvious commercial realities we can’t ignore too. We need to demonstrate our value as architects, not hasten our obsolescence.

For example, there seems to be some agreement on the need for honoraria, but not every client can pay a decent sum on top of fees. Reading through the comments online, one client agreed this would be prohibitive and suggested RIBA might bear the cost of a competition fee. An interesting proposition, but again that is asking architects to pay for their own work, albeit indirectly. Elsewhere, a developer touched on the point that competitions aren’t always ideal for the client and can generate a more lengthy, costly procurement process.

How can competitions work better all round?

We need to engage a wide range of commissioning organisations in any procurement discussion to start from the realms of the fair and the possible. As Adam Preece of the Somerset Wildlife Trust put it very well online: “Most clients are not vicious or tight-fisted, they are doing what they think is right. Every now and then the RIBA pops up with another document telling clients how to do procurement, but that is again from only one perspective and is usually roundly ignored.”

I would like to see all architectural competitions focus on the design concept rather than asking for detailed work, and more realistic reimbursement for the time spent on design and presentation. The RIBA offers guidance for architects looking to enter competitions with these best practice principles, published in 2021. There are similar resources aimed at clients. Neither are consistently implemented. In Australia and elsewhere it seems to be a much fairer system – the city of Brussels has a great guide too. One comment suggested RIBA don’t run competitions but certify best practice, which is another interesting approach.

I remain open to suggestions on how to improve the way in which architects are commissioned, but I’m not convinced that banning competitions is the best way forward

Perhaps it’s time to introduce an Ethical Fee Scale which we should expect no Chartered Architect to fall beneath, if we are to maintain integrity and ensure the right grade of personnel are engaged to ensure safety, sustainability and professional competence. This would be linked to PI premiums which insurers would find reassuring. A similar concept might apply to competitions too – so, if an honorarium is £10,000 per entry, that is effectively what you sign up to spend.

There seems to be a fairly balanced split between those who think competitions can be useful and those who hate the very idea. I remain open to suggestions on how to improve the way in which architects are commissioned, but I’m not convinced that banning competitions is the best way forward. I think they are an opportunity to show your ideas on a level playing field, and practices starting out need help more than ever.

But competitions should be run in a way that invites a response to a problem, not defines a detailed solution; as a means to start a conversation with the client. Done properly, it is an opportunity to demonstrate our worth – not to give it away.

I started a conversation from one point of view, a little clumsily perhaps, and want to gather all views. Competitions are an ongoing issue that gets kicked around with no real commitment to a solution. How can we best work together to change that?

>> Also read: Design competitions: can Chris Williamson move beyond a social media spat and help usher in change?

>> Also read: Chris Williamson: ‘I think we can do a lot for young architects – they need all the help they can get’

>> Also read: Malcolm Reading: making the case for architectural competitions